Latest Cases

Civil procedure – Breach of interdict – Preliminary applications and objections. Court of Session: In proceedings by the Law Society of Scotland for breach of interdict by a solicitor who was interdicted from holding himself out as entitled by law to practice as a solicitor and from pretending to be a solicitor, the court, refusing several preliminary applications and objections in a motion by the respondent, held that the Law Society was not in contempt of court, the petition was not irrelevant, the proceedings were not raised in bad faith, and that the diet of proof should not be discharged because of the respondent's lack of representation. 

Contract – Construction. In a dispute as to the financial consequences of delays which had occurred to the drilling of an appraisal well off the south coast of Ireland, the Commercial Court made finding in respect of, among other things, breach of contract and the recoverability of costs during the relevant periods. 

Tax – Alcohol. The defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners had revoked the claimant company's registration as an owner of duty-suspended goods, pursuant to the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the refusal of the claimant's application for judicial review in which it had sought interim relief pending the determination of its appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber). In dismissing the claimant's appeal, the court held that it was not entitled to intervene to grant interim relief where the registration of a trader in duty-suspended goods was revoked simply on the basis that there was a pending appeal with a realistic chance of success. In the present case, there was no basis whatever for an argument that the Revenue's decision had amounted to an abuse of power, or that it had been improper or taken in bad faith. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which, on the ground of protection of the national cultural and historical heritage, costs relating to listed historic buildings could be deducted solely by owners of historic buildings situated in its territory, provided that that possibility was available to owners of historic buildings which could form part of the cultural and historical heritage of that member state despite being located in the territory of another member state. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant South African national sought judicial review of the defendant's Secretary of State's decision refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a family member. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that transitional provisions brought into force Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules in relation to the claimant's application. Further, the Secretary of State had not imposed too stringent a requirement, namely, that it had to be literally impossible for the family life of the claimant and his partner to continue in South Africa, and the decision would have inevitably been the same in any event. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The claimants fitted machinery at the defendant's premises. The claimants brought proceedings for outstanding sums. An adjudicator held for the claimants, and they sought to enforce the adjudicator's decision. The Technology and Construction Court held that the contract between the parties had involved 'construction operations', and the adjudicator had had jurisdiction to decide on the dispute. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant educational institution sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's revocation of its Tier 4 licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been failings in the management and administration of the claimant which had meant that specific and general duties to comply with the grant of highly trusted sponsor status had not always been met. The Secretary of State had been entitled, on that basis, to reach the decisions she had. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Afghani national issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration that his immigration detention had been unlawful and damages for false imprisonment. The Administrative Court held that, on the proper construction of para 16(2) of Sch 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, an erroneous view of the law, as opposed to an erroneous view of the facts, could not amount to 'reasonable grounds for suspecting' that a person was liable to removal. Accordingly, the claimant's detention had been unlawful. However, it had not been unlawful on the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983). 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Albanian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to certify his human rights claim as clearly unfounded and to detain him pending removal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, despite interference with the claimant's family life, the Secretary of State's decision to certify that the claimant's human rights claim had been clearly unfounded had been rational and lawful. Further, it had been lawful for detention to be maintained, in particular, when family proceedings had been contemplated. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned two linked applications for judicial review of the lawfulness of guidance issued by the College of Policing as part of its 'Armed Policing Authorised Professional Practice' manual (2014). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, addressing the applications as a substantive first instance hearing, held that, while there was a risk of collusion prior to an investigation under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights between police officers who had either used force or witnessed its use, in the light of the safeguards that the guidance provided, and bearing in mind that the adequacy of an investigation for the purposes of art 2 would have to be assessed by reference to all the features of that investigation, the risk of breach of art 2 to which the guidance itself gave rise was not an unacceptable risk such as justified a finding that the guidance itself was unlawful.